that Christ is not involuntarily ignorant, but He uses human ignorance as an excuse for all of humanity to be blessed with ignorance of that specific moment in time as a good thing, and not something one should dwell on. He even teaches later that we should live each moment as our last (for Christ will come like a thief in the night). It's not ignorance in the sense that Christ had no choice in the matter. I'm sure if He wanted to download that information into His human brain (using Fr. Peter's analogy), He could, but He chose not to. Nevertheless, we can still say He does know, and He can share that knowledge, but He wanted us to be ignorant specifically of this time, and so He chooses to be ignorant for us, even though He really does know.

He wanted us to be ignorant specifically of this time, and so He chooses to be ignorant for us, even though He really does know.

Is this a paradox or do you parse it out somehow?

I don't understand your question. I would say that our faith is filled with paradox that works together. By death He conquered death, for instance. The Unlimited took limit, etc.

I mean, when you say that Christ chose to be ignorant, even though because he is the Logos he knows,

Was he really, truly ignorant, while really, truly knowing at the same time in a paradox? Are you okay with that paradox, and okay not trying to explain that he wasn't really ignorant or wasn't really knowing?

« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 02:07:05 PM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm

if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

He wanted us to be ignorant specifically of this time, and so He chooses to be ignorant for us, even though He really does know.

Is this a paradox or do you parse it out somehow?

I don't understand your question. I would say that our faith is filled with paradox that works together. By death He conquered death, for instance. The Unlimited took limit, etc.

I mean, when you say that Christ chose to be ignorant, even though because he is the Logos he knows,

Was he really, truly ignorant, while really, truly knowing at the same time in a paradox? Are you okay with that paradox, and okay not trying to explain that he wasn't really ignorant or wasn't really knowing?

Notice how I chose my words. He does know, but He also chose not to download that information. That's the extent of "ignorance" Christ has. But in His person, yes, He does know. To say anything further would be troublesome. Is this a paradox? I suppose you can say so. Clearly, even St. Athanasius says, He does know, just chose to bless human ignorance of this specific subject. I'm not sure why you're pressing the issue on "truly ignorant" and the same time "truly knowing." On the other thread, you praised St. Athanasius for not taking the subject further, but after another quote posted, he did take it further.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Ignorance is an aspect of the manner in which we learn as humans. We must ACQUIRE knowledge. But the Word Himself has all knowledge INNATELY. The humanity of Christ does not cease to need to acquire knowledge. But RECEIVES all knowledge by the union with the Word. Thus he is truly human in that his knowledge must be acquired, but he receives all knowledge at the point of union, just as he is entirely holy, and entirely wise. He does not learn wisdom by trial and error. He is himself the Word of Wisdom and the Word of Knowledge.

There is however a very real point at which the psychology of Christ should not be investigated. We do not know. We should not presume.

Ignorance is an aspect of the manner in which we learn as humans. We must ACQUIRE knowledge. But the Word Himself has all knowledge INNATELY. The humanity of Christ does not cease to need to acquire knowledge. But RECEIVES all knowledge by the union with the Word. Thus he is truly human in that his knowledge must be acquired, but he receives all knowledge at the point of union, just as he is entirely holy, and entirely wise. He does not learn wisdom by trial and error. He is himself the Word of Wisdom and the Word of Knowledge.

There is however a very real point at which the psychology of Christ should not be investigated. We do not know. We should not presume.

I remember reading somewhere that St. Severus argued that Christ's human mind was omniscient, not ignorant, by virtue of the mind's hypostatic union with the Divine hypostasis. Is this true? And, if so, where can I read what St. Severus has to say on this matter?

Also where can I read St. Theodosius' and Benjamin's works? Were they in the volume Fr. Peter mentioned in message #3?

HE Metropolitan Bishoy said on CYC that Christ did not have all knowledge contained in His mind simultaeneously, since the human mind cannot fit all the facts of the world in it. Rather, he said that He could call up any piece of information at any time to Himself. Is this correct, because it seems to stand in contrast with this thread?

I would tend to agree with the position described as being that of Metropolitan Bishoy.

I would probably not phrase it in the same way though. I would say that it is another interior mystery in the humanity of Christ but that he did always know everything that he ever needed to know to know because he is God the Word incarnate. But this omniscience was manifested humanly in and through the limitations of humanity.

I would say that in some sense the act of conscious recall made all things present to him, just as I may know the capital of China but only bring it to mind when I think of it. You can already see what I think in this thread, and the volume with the necessary writings in it is unfortunately in Syriac or Latin. Take you rpick!